Maybe Jefferson was, but the rant underneath is an extremist libertarian nonsense.
Libertarians of the world hear my voice - your proposed system sucks just as badly as everything else and would result in unprecedented concentration of power by the wealthy, with slavery for the rest.
I don't see a single mention of the rights of the citizens of the USA in there, just a lot of talk about business and government becoming best buddies and scratching each others' backs.
It's made of tri-blade clusters, the opteron to do IO and various other mundane things, and then two Cell PowerX 8 (I think I have that right) blades to do the heavy lifting.
It's fucking nonsense, you are moving in the same direction as the timecube guy. Lots and lots of half-assed assertions, a bunch of meaningless acronyms and a sort of "I'm being persecuted because nobody takes my ideas seriously" theme.
"No it does not. If you are a scientist and you want to see your career plummet, try writing anything against Turing or his ideas."
Don't be ridiculous. If you have well founded ideas and good evidence for your opinions you'd see your career rocket.
"Turing is an infallible god in the computer science community. His computing model is considered a god's gift to humanity even though it is awfully inadequate and seriously flawed."
Please elaborate on these flaws.
"Logic dictates that a true universal machine should be inherently and implicitly parallel."
and provide this "logic". Again, if you have a better idea then get to it. How does this inherently parallel machine work? What about Turing's ideas is stopping you from developing this inherently parallel machine?
Seriously, at this point your starting to sound like the timecube guy.
To be fair, there are other problems with the technologies you mention -
Blu Ray movies are expensive and DVD is "good enough". Vista is both bloatware and nagware on an unprecedented scale.
I still think DRM is *mostly* below the radar for a lot of folks. The only time any of my family have ever even noticed it was when my stepmother's shakira album wouldn't rip.
"We were talking about "war" in general, and your suggestion was, indeed, to react by minding one own's business - that's sticking an empty head in the sand,"
To mind one's own business, yes, to look after your own business. If there are threats against you, real one and not made up nonsense and rhetoric about "freedom", I'd say that's part of your business, no?
"The US chose the option of keeping him in a reduced power position since the alternatives were less viable. Unfortunately, not everybody cared to mind their own business, and 9/11 ensued"
Wow. So now that the "we attacked iraq because saddam was too strong" theory has been blown out the water, the "he was too weak" theory comes in. That's a new one on me. Keep on spinning.
"Doing NOTHING won't stop the next catastrophic event, and NOTHING is what the post is advocating."
And invading Iraq won't stop the next catastrophic event either. In fact it's probably made it more likely. Minding one's own business means looking after your legitimate defence concerns, not wearing a blindfold. I made the post you're referring to and even I'm not advocating sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA". I'm suggesting sticking to legitimate, defensive policy.
"When you fight a war, you need to fight to win it"
That's not the same as by any means necessary and it's not what I asked. You make it sound like any amount of civilian death is acceptable, like any tactics are acceptable to achieve your aims.
At the same time we are asked to believe that we are pursuing war for the good of the people of the country we have invaded?
I mean seriously, what utter fucking rubbish. I take it you've never heard of any country ever where a small group of evil people took charge through fear or monetary means? Or facism or organised crime. The good guys almost always outnumber the bad guys, but most won't do a single thing about it becauase they have their own lives to worry about.
This is the whole reason we delgate powers to governments.
So not attacking random third parties that were no threat to us is like putting one's head in the sand?
Iraq had no Al-Queda links before the invasion, it had no "WMD"s. It was no fucking threat to anyone. Now, however, it's a mostly lawless hellhole with a billion hiding places for anyone with a grudge. Frankly, in this case, the Ostrich option wins, hands fucking down.
Get a brain, there are other options than ignoring the world and invading it at random. Though looking back through history, that does seem to be what the US has done for most of it's life, one or the other.
Do not state your aims as diplomatic and then intern, torture and murder the populace because they might be hiding insurgents. That makes you evil. End of fucking story.
If the populace is hiding that many insurgents, freedom fighters, resistance units, partisans, terrorists or whatever you want to call them (oooh, Vietnam anywone?) then perhaps it's time to go home.
"Should we always keep out of other people's countries?"
No, I guess not, but we certainly shouldn't fabricate evidence, spout off about how great we are for bringing peace, justice and freedom to people, then fuck them over at every chance we get because "this is WAR!!!".
I don't, learn to fucking read. I hate the rhetoric.
"Telling people that freedom is a good thing. And honor?"
They don't though, they tell people that freedom and honour are US virtues (sometimes they imply that they are exclusively USian) all the while their actions are quite the opposite to their words.
"Because the number one virtue in life is being able to avoid the charge of hypocrisy."
"I'll observe that it is the insurgents who cynically hide behind an unarmed populace."
So fucking what, does that make it all well and good to murder tens of thousands of civilians?
"A uniformed military must counter the insurgents in some way; would you prefer that we burn down the house to kill the bed bugs? What do you suggest? Asking the insurgents nicely to go home?"
I would suggest getting the fuck out of other people's countries and minding your own goddamn business.
When we go over there to bring them freedom, we can do whatever the fuck we like because we're the "good guys", right?
Whilst i can see some justification for some of these techniques in an actual war of defence against an aggressive power, you know this shit's going on in our wars of adventure and speculation too.
We need some sort of government to protect peope from each other.
Otherwise I couldn't agree more, it just sems to be a bunch of rich, cantankerous old killjoys at the top of each country, making up reasons to kill people that are under the influence of another bunch of rich old bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we expect government officials to try and subvert our liberties and have grown cynical about the possibility of ever changing that?
Insightful?
Maybe Jefferson was, but the rant underneath is an extremist libertarian nonsense.
Libertarians of the world hear my voice - your proposed system sucks just as badly as everything else and would result in unprecedented concentration of power by the wealthy, with slavery for the rest.
I don't see a single mention of the rights of the citizens of the USA in there, just a lot of talk about business and government becoming best buddies and scratching each others' backs.
What happened to by the people, for the people?
These days it seems to be more "buy the people".
It's made of tri-blade clusters, the opteron to do IO and various other mundane things, and then two Cell PowerX 8 (I think I have that right) blades to do the heavy lifting.
They were just flirting :)
You know, it was a bit of an ego boost on both sides and you knew eventually it would end with both sides seeing eye to eye...
OK, i read some of your page.
It's fucking nonsense, you are moving in the same direction as the timecube guy. Lots and lots of half-assed assertions, a bunch of meaningless acronyms and a sort of "I'm being persecuted because nobody takes my ideas seriously" theme.
I'd advise psychiatric help. I'm serious.
"No it does not. If you are a scientist and you want to see your career plummet, try writing anything against Turing or his ideas."
Don't be ridiculous. If you have well founded ideas and good evidence for your opinions you'd see your career rocket.
"Turing is an infallible god in the computer science community. His computing model is considered a god's gift to humanity even though it is awfully inadequate and seriously flawed."
Please elaborate on these flaws.
"Logic dictates that a true universal machine should be inherently and implicitly parallel."
and provide this "logic". Again, if you have a better idea then get to it. How does this inherently parallel machine work? What about Turing's ideas is stopping you from developing this inherently parallel machine?
Seriously, at this point your starting to sound like the timecube guy.
To be fair, there are other problems with the technologies you mention -
Blu Ray movies are expensive and DVD is "good enough".
Vista is both bloatware and nagware on an unprecedented scale.
I still think DRM is *mostly* below the radar for a lot of folks. The only time any of my family have ever even noticed it was when my stepmother's shakira album wouldn't rip.
"We were talking about "war" in general, and your suggestion was, indeed, to react by minding one own's business - that's sticking an empty head in the sand,"
To mind one's own business, yes, to look after your own business. If there are threats against you, real one and not made up nonsense and rhetoric about "freedom", I'd say that's part of your business, no?
"The US chose the option of keeping him in a reduced power position since the alternatives were less viable. Unfortunately, not everybody cared to mind their own business, and 9/11 ensued"
Wow. So now that the "we attacked iraq because saddam was too strong" theory has been blown out the water, the "he was too weak" theory comes in. That's a new one on me. Keep on spinning.
"Doing NOTHING won't stop the next catastrophic event, and NOTHING is what the post is advocating."
And invading Iraq won't stop the next catastrophic event either. In fact it's probably made it more likely. Minding one's own business means looking after your legitimate defence concerns, not wearing a blindfold. I made the post you're referring to and even I'm not advocating sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA". I'm suggesting sticking to legitimate, defensive policy.
Eh, I didn't think we were doing it to defend the persian gulf. Or for oil.
I was told it was for the freedom of the people of Iraq. A war for continued access to energy reserves is a completely different prospect.
"When you fight a war, you need to fight to win it"
That's not the same as by any means necessary and it's not what I asked. You make it sound like any amount of civilian death is acceptable, like any tactics are acceptable to achieve your aims.
At the same time we are asked to believe that we are pursuing war for the good of the people of the country we have invaded?
The two things are opposed and do not mesh.
"I'll be here making the best of this horrible, corrupt government that allows me to live at a standard above the rest of the world."
You're Swedish? I didn't know your government was that bad.
Stuff and nonsense.
I mean seriously, what utter fucking rubbish. I take it you've never heard of any country ever where a small group of evil people took charge through fear or monetary means? Or facism or organised crime. The good guys almost always outnumber the bad guys, but most won't do a single thing about it becauase they have their own lives to worry about.
This is the whole reason we delgate powers to governments.
The Ostrich Option?
So not attacking random third parties that were no threat to us is like putting one's head in the sand?
Iraq had no Al-Queda links before the invasion, it had no "WMD"s. It was no fucking threat to anyone. Now, however, it's a mostly lawless hellhole with a billion hiding places for anyone with a grudge. Frankly, in this case, the Ostrich option wins, hands fucking down.
Get a brain, there are other options than ignoring the world and invading it at random. Though looking back through history, that does seem to be what the US has done for most of it's life, one or the other.
Do not state your aims as diplomatic and then intern, torture and murder the populace because they might be hiding insurgents. That makes you evil. End of fucking story.
If the populace is hiding that many insurgents, freedom fighters, resistance units, partisans, terrorists or whatever you want to call them (oooh, Vietnam anywone?) then perhaps it's time to go home.
"Should we always keep out of other people's countries?"
No, I guess not, but we certainly shouldn't fabricate evidence, spout off about how great we are for bringing peace, justice and freedom to people, then fuck them over at every chance we get because "this is WAR!!!".
"Congrats on hating the US."
I don't, learn to fucking read. I hate the rhetoric.
"Telling people that freedom is a good thing. And honor?"
They don't though, they tell people that freedom and honour are US virtues (sometimes they imply that they are exclusively USian) all the while their actions are quite the opposite to their words.
"Because the number one virtue in life is being able to avoid the charge of hypocrisy."
No, FAIL. Strawman. Fuck off and die.
"(just like the majority of people) thought it was necessary at the time."
Are we talking about in Australia?
because in the UK the sentiment was thoroughly anti-war, to the extent that we the largest protests in the history of the country.
"Oh yeah, arming one group of people and giving them a monopoly on violence is the solution to interpersonal conflict."
What's your solution?
Allow people just to kill each other in the street?
Because if you don't have some sort of authority, that's what will happen.
"I'll observe that it is the insurgents who cynically hide behind an unarmed populace."
So fucking what, does that make it all well and good to murder tens of thousands of civilians?
"A uniformed military must counter the insurgents in some way; would you prefer that we burn down the house to kill the bed bugs? What do you suggest? Asking the insurgents nicely to go home?"
I would suggest getting the fuck out of other people's countries and minding your own goddamn business.
That's what we were told would be necessary for Iraq. A lollipop, and then there would be hugs.
That's the picture of war we were sold by the various governments, along with the usual crap bout freedom and honour.
This just goes to prove how much utter bullshit that is, along with all the US rhetoric about freedom and humanity.
So it's by any means necessary then?
When we go over there to bring them freedom, we can do whatever the fuck we like because we're the "good guys", right?
Whilst i can see some justification for some of these techniques in an actual war of defence against an aggressive power, you know this shit's going on in our wars of adventure and speculation too.
We need some sort of government to protect peope from each other.
Otherwise I couldn't agree more, it just sems to be a bunch of rich, cantankerous old killjoys at the top of each country, making up reasons to kill people that are under the influence of another bunch of rich old bastards.
I like warm coffee you insensitive clod!
No, really, not all of us can stand it at just below boiling point, it's too hot.
French Press? You'll be calling it a freedom press next.
It's called a cafetiere.